Hyper-Inflation

[Afforess]

Technically, this falls out of the purview of Better AI; but it's so ******ed, I have to bring it up.

Inflation.

Inflation in Civ4, is so blatently unrealistic. It is set to increase slightly every turn, no matter what. So, by the year 2000 AD, inflation in your country can easily be 200+%. Basically, if inflation was 200%, an item costing one dollar one turn would cost three dollars the next. Now, I understand why inflation was put into the game, it has been explained to me that inflation was introduced to make smaller countries more competitive with larger ones, and so that in the late game empires aren't earning 1000 gold/turn. But there must be better ways to deal with this than a silly ever-increasing function.

Now, this isn't to mean that inflation shouldn't be in the game. But it should be determined by actual economic factors in your country. In times of prosperity (read: Golden Ages), inflation should spike to 10-20%. But on average, inflation, in a normal year, doesn't exceed 5%. Also, when the government (read: the player) spends lots of money on upgrading units or hurry buildings, inflation should temporarily spike. This is when the government crowds out the market. If the government stumbles across a cache of wealth (see: goody hut), inflation should also temporarily spike. Then, to make things more dynamic, when the government is earning money, inflation should slowly decrease. (If you're stockpiling money instead of spending it on research, it's less money in the economy, making the less money more valuable.) Then, when you're losing money, inflation should increase. This of course is balanced by the fact, that when the player spends the money upgrading or hurrying buildings, inflation spikes back up. Over time, this inflation could still have a similar effect, as inflation is cumulative.

I have other thoughts on what inflation could be changed to, but it would be a real game changer...

Also, since we're talking money here, since when is the limit for money in a government zero. Why are players limited to zero gold as a minimum? The US has trillions in debt, and many other countries have some debt or another. Player should be able to, at least, temporarily go into debt. I'm not sure how this mechanic would work, and I think it falls more into RevDCM territory than Better AI, but I thought I would bring it up.

 

[God-Emperor]

The inflation value is not the inflation rate per year, it is the current modifier as accumulated since the beginning of time. This is not even close to the same thing. +200% does not mean that it is +200% more than last turn, it means it is +200% compared to the beginning of time. It also doesn't apply to everything - it only applies to unit, city, and civic maintenance type costs. If you still had a warrior and could still upgrade it to an axeman it would cost exactly the same in 2000AD as it did in 2000BC.

If anything, this is probably too low. In recent decades inflation in the US, for example, has been perhaps 2.5% per year or so. Using that rate, after 10 years the difference is +28%. After 100 years it is +1081%. That is why one US dollar now buys less than a dime ($0.10) did 100 years ago (more or less, for things that are essentially the same thing). What do you suppose it is since 6000 years ago, total? Beats me (for a lot of it, inflation didn't really exist) - but it's probably significantly more than that. Inflation in Civ is nowhere near this, thus it is too low. On the other hand, the income doesn't scale up to match like it does in the real world (everything costs 2 times as much as X years ago, but you also make 2 times as much, give or take). A more realistic, but useless for game purpoeses, method would be to have inflation increase more but income to also go up, so the income from cottages, trade routes, etc. goes up too. To some extent it does - as time passes you get techs that increase various commerce values directly (printing press, for example) and alow you to build buildings that increase it too (like harbors). But, like I said, for game purposes this is pointless as it is just making all the numbers bigger on both sides of the equation.

 

[Panopticon]

Finally, a Better AI question to which I can apply my training in the history of monetary thought.

Before the development of banking institutions, the only source of inflation that mattered in the long run was seigniorage, which is decently represented by the current system, because it wasn't necessarily decided by central government decisions. The currency debasement was usually done by anyone with access to large amounts of coin. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of evidence about inflation rates before the 18th century. So the best change would be to make inflation much faster in the modern era. On balance, though, would this really improve gameplay enough to add it to a mod, with all the increases in processing time it would entail?

 

[Afforess]

The inflation value is not the inflation rate per year, it is the current modifier as accumulated since the beginning of time. This is not even close to the same thing. +200% does not mean that it is +200% more than last turn, it means it is +200% compared to the beginning of time. It also doesn't apply to everything - it only applies to unit, city, and civic maintenance type costs. If you still had a warrior and could still upgrade it to an axeman it would cost exactly the same in 2000AD as it did in 2000BC.

That's silly. This probably belongs more to BUG then, but I don't want to see inflation for the game's entirety. I want to see inflation that turn, and inflation overall.

I want to see inflation as a realistic function. It can increase most of the time, like it does now, but have it effected by the different actions civilizations take like hurrying buildings, or earning tons of money. Inflation in the real world does go up every year, but it depends on how much or little.

 

[MartinHarper]

What makes you think that civ4 "inflation" is supposed to represent monetary inflation of units of currency? If anything, it represents the inflation of maintenance costs due to rising ethical standards over time.

 

[r_rolo1]

For having real RL-style inflation, you would need to have a lot stuff that civ IV doesn't have, the first being private production and comsuption of goods

 

[Woody1]

That's silly. This probably belongs more to BUG then, but I don't want to see inflation for the game's entirety. I want to see inflation that turn, and inflation overall.

I want to see inflation as a realistic function. It can increase most of the time, like it does now, but have it effected by the different actions civilizations take like hurrying buildings, or earning tons of money. Inflation in the real world does go up every year, but it depends on how much or little.

That's one of the more bizarre patch requests I've seen.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

I want to see inflation as a realistic function. It can increase most of the time, like it does now, but have it effected by the different actions civilizations take like hurrying buildings, or earning tons of money. Inflation in the real world does go up every year, but it depends on how much or little.

For having real RL-style inflation, you would need to have a lot stuff that civ IV doesn't have, the first being private production and comsuption of goods

Hmmm... while I don't think realistic inflation is a good idea, tying it in hurrying production might not be a bad idea. Right now, inflation costs are only calculated based on handicap modifiers and the number of turns that have passed in the game. Since the idea behind inflation in the game is to prevent players from accumulating huge piles of gold and not to represent a real world problem, it would probably also make sense to have it affect the rich players more rathhen placing the exact same burden on the poorest players.

 

[Yakk]

Removing the inflation multiplier would have large, far-reaching balance consequences. Basically you'd have to completely rejigger the Civ4 economy.

 

[cdcuase]

I think the absract-inflation in civ4 is appropriate for the type of game it is. After all there are countless things that are not very realistic in this game (like a modern destroyer taking 20+ years to circumnavigate the world).

Realistic inflation among other things is something I'd like to see Civ 5 tackle.

 

[r_rolo1]

Hmmm... while I don't think realistic inflation is a good idea, tying it in hurrying production might not be a bad idea. Right now, inflation costs are only calculated based on handicap modifiers and the number of turns that have passed in the game. Since the idea behind inflation in the game is to prevent players from accumulating huge piles of gold and not to represent a real world problem, it would probably also make sense to have it affect the rich players more rathhen placing the exact same burden on the poorest players.

I pretty much agree with this line of thought. But you must reckon that the name of the variable is prone to induce in error

About modding inflation: well, as you said, inflation in Civ IV is a rebalancing system to avoid big piles of cash . In that sense it should obviously affect civs with more cash flow than civs with little ( a thing that would go well with what you proposed ), but that could cause some side-effects, like penalizing civs that use extensively cottages vs others that use other less money-intensive aproaches ( SP workshops, for a example ). I'm sure that some players would like that quirk, but i'm not so sure how damaging/beneficial that could be in terms of game balance

 

[PieceOfMind]

Why can't you just imagine that the currency used in game (gold) is changing its monetary value as the game goes on. Inflation happens to units of currency IIUC. Just treat as a scaled type of currency.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

About modding inflation: well, as you said, inflation in Civ IV is a rebalancing system to avoid big piles of cash . In that sense it should obviously affect civs with more cash flow than civs with little ( a thing that would go well with what you proposed ), but that could cause some side-effects, like penalizing civs that use extensively cottages vs others that use other less money-intensive aproaches ( SP workshops, for a example ). I'm sure that some players would like that quirk, but i'm not so sure how damaging/beneficial that could be in terms of game balance

Well, it would definitely help out the smaller civs and keep them from being plunged into financial crisis as they seem to perpetually be in. It would help make them a little more competitive.

And yes, I'm sure there would be unforeseen consequences. It would definitely affect different game strategies.

I'm just not really sure what the best formula would be to calculate cumulative hurried production into inflation cost. Anyone have any ideas?

 

[Roland Johansen]

There is no inflation mechanism in this game. There isn't even a currency in this game. The closest thing to a currency in this game is probably gold or hammers. But gold will allow you to buy exactly the same at the start of the game as it does at the end of the game, so there's no inflation in gold. You can upgrade just as many units and buy just as many buildings or units with a certain amount of gold at the start of the game as you can at the end of the game. Also hammers will allow you to build exactly the same amount of stuff at the start of the game as they do at the end of the game.

There is a scaling mechanism named inflation in this game. It's hidden in the financial screen and many starting players will not notice it even being there until they've played several games. The name was probably chosen by the designers to make the mechanism more acceptable to the players. A name like 'maintenance increasing function' just doesn't sound that attractive. I personally find it one of the very worst design decisions in Civilization IV. It's just plain lazy game design. If you want to make sure that civilisations in this game need to invest a certain percentage of their commerce on maintenance and other game elements other than science while they keep getting more options to generate income, then such costly game elements should be introduced in the game. There are many ways to introduce them like units that have a higher upkeep than 1 gold per turn, buildings that have upkeep and railroads that have upkeep. Another way would be an espionage expenditure which is designed in a way that a certain expenditure is useful to protect your civilisation and more can be used to inflict havoc on those that don't protect themselves well (a very different model than the present espionage model). Now, there's a mechanism (called inflation) that says that an archer that costs 1 gold per turn at the start of the game costs 2 gold per turn at the end of the game. That's just weird and reduces the believability of and players immersion into the game.

If new elements were introduced in the game that cost gold, then the player could influence how many he or she would want of these elements and thus influence his or her maintenance cost. It could create strategic or tactical decisions. Now the only way to lower your 'inflation' maintenance at a certain development stage of the game is to get to that stage of the game at an earlier turn number as the 'maintenance increasing function' is linked to the turn number.

All of this of course has nothing to do with the Better AI mod.

 

[MartinHarper]

Changing my opinion...

The inflation mechanic really is inflation. Specifically, it is the difference between wage inflation and price inflation. Wage inflation is the rate at which wages rise (for the same job) and price inflation is the rate at which shop prices rise (for the same object). Typically wage inflation is bigger than price inflation, which is one contributor to our improved living conditions.

For example, in 4000 BC, you can hire an archer for two bowls of rice a day. In 2000 AD, you need to pay minimum wage, which allows the archer to purchase many bowls of rice, as well as cable TV, clothing, lighting, heat, and so forth.

I don't know what economic factors increase wage inflation without increasing price inflation.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Changing my opinion...

The inflation mechanic really is inflation. Specifically, it is the difference between wage inflation and price inflation. Wage inflation is the rate at which wages rise (for the same job) and price inflation is the rate at which shop prices rise (for the same object). Typically wage inflation is bigger than price inflation, which is one contributor to our improved living conditions.

For example, in 4000 BC, you can hire an archer for two bowls of rice a day. In 2000 AD, you need to pay minimum wage, which allows the archer to purchase many bowls of rice, as well as cable TV, clothing, lighting, heat, and so forth.

I don't know what economic factors increase wage inflation without increasing price inflation.

Any abstract weird game mechanism can be explained away by some obscure reasoning. That doesn't make it a good game mechanism. You haven't explained away the fact that it also increases civic costs and city maintenance cost. But I have no doubt that similar arguments can be found to explain those away. You'll make something up about increased bureaucracy and higher standards about architecture in the cities or whatever (which aren't related to inflation). You will have a big problem however with explaining away that this increase in cost is in no way related to a civilisations progress on the technology tree. A civilisation having medieval age technologies in 2000 AD will have to pay the increased costs of 2 gold per turn per unit while a civilisation at future tech 10 in 500 AD will only pay close to 1 gold per turn per unit. Try to explain that. Time travel maybe?

No, the mechanism is just a lazy designers way to increase the maintenance cost in the late game. There's no deep game philosophy behind it, thinking this is the ideal abstract way to represent inflation. The increased maintenance could have been done so much better by making the late game elements (units, buildings, railroads, modern counter-espionage) have a higher maintenance and thereby explaining the higher maintenance and connecting it to the rate of technological progress. It would have introduced some new late game choices of whether to construct these costly game elements or not. It would mean that such constructions would be worth it in some cities and areas while others would have to make do with lesser development as it would just cost too much in those areas relative to the increased profit.

 

[MartinHarper]

You haven't explained away the fact that it also increases civic costs and city maintenance cost. But I have no doubt that similar arguments can be found to explain those away.

Specifically, those costs are all about administration and bureaucracy, and bureaucrats need to be paid according to wage inflation. I agree that the inflation mechanic is there for gameplay reasons rather than realism reasons, but it's not quite as mis-named as I previously thought.

The increased maintenance could have been done so much better by making the late game elements (units, buildings, railroads, modern counter-espionage) have a higher maintenance and thereby explaining the higher maintenance and connecting it to the rate of technological progress.

Giving late game units higher maintenance costs could certainly replace inflation of unit maintenance and unit supply. However, one of the purposes of maintenance is to reduce the advantage of large empires. Whatever inflation replacement you choose needs to fill the same role.

I wonder whether better AI needs to rebalance inflation to cope with the improved AI economies, just as it is rebalancing tech rates.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Giving late game units higher maintenance costs could certainly replace inflation of unit maintenance and unit supply. However, one of the purposes of maintenance is to reduce the advantage of large empires. Whatever inflation replacement you choose needs to fill the same role.

I wonder whether better AI needs to rebalance inflation to cope with the improved AI economies, just as it is rebalancing tech rates.

In civilisation 4, only city maintenance grows non-linear with empire size (and thus the 'inflation' mechanism increases that). However, when an empire gets a bit large, city maintenance starts to grow linearly with empire size again as the number of cities maintenance reaches a maximum value per city. Only at the starting expansion phase of the game, the non-linear growth of the city maintenance is actually an influence on game play. When inflation becomes an issue, city maintenance is already way past its period of influence on game play.

Civic maintenance grows purely linearly with empire size.

You need less units per city to defend a larger empire. You need an equal amount of defenders per city on your borders but less in the interior and you don't need that many more mobile units which can be used for offence or defence. The mobile force can be of a similar size than the one of a smaller empire reducing the units per city count and thus unit maintenance grows slower than linearly with empire size. Larger empires are also attacked less due to their larger power rating and thus need to replace less units. Unit maintenance grows less than linear with empire size.

Larger empires benefit more from more resources which can be used to improve the economy of cities or sold for gpt improving the economic balance for larger empires over that of smaller empires.

I don't know whether inflation was designed to help smaller empires compete with larger ones. I have read players state this, but haven't seen the comment from one of the Firaxians. If inflation was introduced for this reason, then they didn't think it through well. It just doesn't have this effect.